A. The defendant 8.0% on the plaintiff (the appointed party), the appointed party C, D, and E respectively.

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the winners (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) delegated the duty to report inheritance tax to the Defendant who operates the tax accounting office upon the death of the deceased, who is the inheritee, and paid KRW 321,064,097 of inheritance tax around February 2014, and thereafter, paid the Defendant the tax base fee.

B. The head of the Ulsan District Tax Office originally assessed the value of the land and building in Ulsan-gu J (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) which is the inherited property of the Plaintiff, etc. as KRW 659,380,340, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the payment of inheritance tax according to the Plaintiff, etc.’s report. As to this, the Ulsan District Tax Office was audited by the Busan District Tax Service that erred in the assessment of the value of the said real estate in violation of Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(c)

Since then, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office revaluatedd the appraised value of the real estate of this case to KRW 978,636,200, and notified the plaintiff et al. to pay additional KRW 182,793,130, including additional KRW 55,354,51, based on Article 47-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(d)

The plaintiff, Selection C, D, and E are the children of the deceased, and the Selection F is the deceased's fraud, and the Selection G and H are the grandchildren of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, response to the order of taxation information to the Ulsan Tax Office by the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In evaluating the value of the instant real estate as a tax specialist, the Defendant did not properly review the relevant inheritance tax and gift tax law, and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and had the Plaintiff report and pay taxes. Since the Plaintiff et al. suffered losses due to the Defendant’s breach of the above duty of care, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. 1) The occurrence of liability for damages is entrusted to a certified tax accountant and a tax return agent.